A little less than three years after a bond measure aimed at preserving some 23 acres of hillside property in San Carlos for open space and recreational use failed, plans to build townhomes, condominiums and single-family homes on the former Black Mountain Spring Water Company properties are starting to take shape.
In submitting plans to make 68 three-story townhomes available on an 11.3-acre site west of Alameda de las Pulgas and between Madera Avenue and Melendy Drive, the developer Dragonfly is preparing to build 14 clusters of homes to replace three single-family structures near the St. Charles School at 850 Tamarack Ave. and Brittan Acres Elementary School at 2000 Belle Ave. Just north of what is known as the “Black Mountain” property, conceptual drawings to build 60 residential units in a mix of condominiums and single-family homes on a 12.25-acre site dubbed the Vista del Grande property have been submitted by Wanmei Properties, according to pre-applications submitted to the city.
Formerly the site of a family-owned water company, the properties where nearly 130 residences are now planned were the subject of a 2015 bond measure called Measure V. Aimed at protecting the sites from development and preserving them for open space and recreational use, the effort sought to raise funds to buy the 11.3-acre Black Mountain property, 7.3-acre Rollieri property and 4.9-acre Vista Del Grande property. Though proponents of the city’s purchase argued it would have spared the land from the future development of up to 100 homes, opponents of Measure V cited concerns about the lack of clarify around use of the funds and felt city officials overstated the need to save additional park space and the threat of developments in the area.
The final cost to purchase and improve the land would have been $86 million and cost the average homeowner $118 in annual property taxes. Measure V ultimately failed, garnering less than 40 percent of the vote when it needed two-thirds majority to pass.
Dragonfly purchased the four parcels it is aiming to merge into one 11.3-acre parcel in November of 2016 and has a goal of obtaining approval in fall of 2019 to be able to start construction a year later, according to the plans. Because the site is bordered by open space and residences in the city’s Devonshire neighborhood, the developer is planning to use prefabricated modular and steel framing components to minimize impacts on the community and the environment during construction, according to the plans. Also included in the plans are a community park and publicly accessible trails connecting with Dundee Lane and Heather Drive.
Amit Haller, chairman of the Dragonfly Group, said the developer is looking forward to the community’s response to the project.
“We have worked hard to create a sustainable and innovative project, designed to limit disruption, generate community benefits and support the city’s housing and climate plans,” he said in an email.
To support road maintenance and landscaping at the Black Mountain property, Dragonfly is proposing to form a single homeowners association, according to the plans. The proposal also estimates the developer could contribute some $4.7 million toward the city’s housing in-lieu fee fund, but Haller said an economic study is being conducted of all options for satisfying the city’s affordable housing requirements, including on-site and off-site units as well as paying an in-lieu fee.
Recommended for you
Submitted in January, Dragonfly’s proposal has received feedback from city staff and the developer is planning neighborhood meetings for the end of August or early September, according to City Manager Jeff Maltbie’s newsletter. Having submitted a conceptual design with the city June 12, Wanmei Properties’ plans will require further refinements, according to the newsletter and the developer’s plans.
How those traveling to and from the projects could contribute to traffic congestion were top of mind for Councilman Mark Olbert, who said he hoped transportation alternatives like shuttles and other public transit connections are considered for the sites. Though he supported Measure V in 2015, Olbert said he couldn’t tell how the project might be received when the plans go up for review in public hearings, noting what’s unique about the project is that residents have already weighed in on what’s planned at the sites.
“The community’s already voted on this,” he said. “The community was presented with the choice of whether or not to take the land out of development … and basically said, ‘no thanks,’ and that’s fine.”
Though she was involved in a committee to oppose Measure V in 2015, resident Lorene Lederer said she could not speak for others but noted the city is now facing proposals to build 128 homes on land officials previously predicted could support up to 100 homes.
“Measure V was about handing over a blank check to a City Council that offered no plan, no price and no confirmation on how much land would actually be purchased,” she said in an email, adding that estimates for the costs of maintaining the properties were not provided to residents at the time. “This is why two thirds of San Carlans said ‘no’ despite the City Council spending [more than] $500,000 in General Fund dollars to promote the scheme.”
City planner Lisa Costa Sanders confirmed the plans require review by the city’s Planning Commission and do not require City Council approval.
No On V--- I am there with you on this. This city council cares nothing about you citizens. As a 40 year San Carlos local I have watched a lot change. Some good but more recently bad. I can go on about this for way to much time and name drop but its not about that. Just know that (as I have watched it happen) your more recent SC city council members(post 2000) are self serving, not citizen serving. In my opinion that stupid Train Town is the biggest ugliest skyline ruining project ever allowed....(well since 1979 and that was when the now Samtrans building was allowed). In my opinion this building was the biggest blow to all of San Carlos ever. What an ugly, ugly building that absolutely ruined the small town look of San Carlos. If you want change make change. Vote these people out and get true citizens in , I mean people who are truly long term citizens that care about what is said at the meetings. I am so disappointed in the direction of SC its hard for me to even talk about it. Good Luck
Can anyone point me to any links about this project? It sounds phenomenal somewhere we might like to live and buy a home. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
One of the things to keep in mind about quotes in newspapers is that quotes are always just a part -- and generally only a small part -- of what gets said. Because no newspaper is going to waste ink (or web page space) reprinting a dissertation.
My comments about traffic were in the context of dealing with the impact of additional cars on some of the roads feeding into the area being developed, because some of those roads are relatively narrow and twisty. Shuttles and what not are also consistent with things I've said many times on many projects that have come before the Council over the years. Because I think having more of them would benefit the community.
Please also keep in mind that private property rights are pretty fundamental in our system of governance. How private property is used can be regulated -- we don't allow property owners to build 40 foot tall homes, or occupy a site without a functioning bathroom, even though they own the land -- but not to the extent some people think it can.
The same system of laws which allows you to build an addition on your home allows the owners of the Black Mountain properties to build housing there. In both cases, you have to comply with the rules, but the rules can't forbid you from building.
In the 1920's and 1930's and 1940's San Carlos residents understanding the need for parks and schools for future generations, paid for bonds and taxes necessary to make both happen. There were no "plans" on what the schools or parks were before the votes for funding - people *knew* that the land needed to be secured first, THEN plans could be developed after. Seems like the citizenry sure placed the needs of the town ahead of their own interests back then! The No on V camp fell under a few categories: 1. Recent arrivals already paying through the nose on property taxes (Example: 17k a year on a 1.5 million dollar house and not wanting to pay an additional $200 a year). 2. Seniors who learned they would not get an exemption for bonds as they do receive for parcel taxes. Never mind that many (most?) long time senior's home valuations were under $500k so the addtional amount would've been less than $70 on their property worth in the seven figures. 3. Realtor / Commerce - Realtors pass up an opportunity for more commissions? Inconceivable ! Downtown businesses wanting more customers? Yes! In fact the No on V signage was being handed out at the home of a former Rotary president.
Misinformation - I'm not a City employee but I think they did a good job of presenting facts. The three interest groups cited did their best at spreading misinformation and scare tactics ("seniors, you'll be thrown out on the street!" "We don't know the plans, we don't know the plans, OMG!" ) everywhere.
Follow the money, and you'll see why the measure really failed. More money for business and realtors and higher taxes for people too frugal to put their neighbors ahead of themselves. You complain about why San Carlos is changing? It started with YOU! Who's loudly in favor of the new apartments you see coming up? Business/realtors. Who's happy about the 100 units that they're trying to approve? Business/realtors. What happened to our high school, theaters, bowling alleys? Redeveloped. Think, people! And care more about your neighbors, too. If we don't - we won't recapture the "village" feel most of us moved here for.
I'm saddened by the runaway development that's filling in every bit of open space we have, and climbing ever higher. How will all these extra residents get to and from the freeway? Where will the new kids go to school? How much revenue will we chase before we've realized we've sold out our quality of life and the very essence of this City of Good Living? No, I haven't been in the planning meetings and City Council meetings, so that's on me. It's time to change that. Someone is getting rich on all of this development, but the City and its residents will be paying for this for a long time. There's your "blank check."
A question for the SM Daily Journal: why is it that every time there is an article about San Carlos, the Journal decides to limit its replies to Mark Olbert? He has a very limited and skewed view of the world.
His "concerns" about traffic are beyond laughable. This coming from the same City Council that approved the huge apartment complexes along El Camino and the Wheeler Plaza development? He has zero credibility.
This is not acceptable. "The final cost to purchase and improve the land would have been $86 million and cost the average homeowner $118 in annual property taxes. Measure V ultimately failed, garnering less than 40 percent of the vote when it needed two-thirds majority to pass."
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(8) comments
No On V--- I am there with you on this. This city council cares nothing about you citizens. As a 40 year San Carlos local I have watched a lot change. Some good but more recently bad. I can go on about this for way to much time and name drop but its not about that. Just know that (as I have watched it happen) your more recent SC city council members(post 2000) are self serving, not citizen serving. In my opinion that stupid Train Town is the biggest ugliest skyline ruining project ever allowed....(well since 1979 and that was when the now Samtrans building was allowed). In my opinion this building was the biggest blow to all of San Carlos ever. What an ugly, ugly building that absolutely ruined the small town look of San Carlos. If you want change make change. Vote these people out and get true citizens in , I mean people who are truly long term citizens that care about what is said at the meetings. I am so disappointed in the direction of SC its hard for me to even talk about it. Good Luck
Can anyone point me to any links about this project? It sounds phenomenal somewhere we might like to live and buy a home. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
One of the things to keep in mind about quotes in newspapers is that quotes are always just a part -- and generally only a small part -- of what gets said. Because no newspaper is going to waste ink (or web page space) reprinting a dissertation.
My comments about traffic were in the context of dealing with the impact of additional cars on some of the roads feeding into the area being developed, because some of those roads are relatively narrow and twisty. Shuttles and what not are also consistent with things I've said many times on many projects that have come before the Council over the years. Because I think having more of them would benefit the community.
Please also keep in mind that private property rights are pretty fundamental in our system of governance. How private property is used can be regulated -- we don't allow property owners to build 40 foot tall homes, or occupy a site without a functioning bathroom, even though they own the land -- but not to the extent some people think it can.
The same system of laws which allows you to build an addition on your home allows the owners of the Black Mountain properties to build housing there. In both cases, you have to comply with the rules, but the rules can't forbid you from building.
In the 1920's and 1930's and 1940's San Carlos residents understanding the need for parks and schools for future generations, paid for bonds and taxes necessary to make both happen. There were no "plans" on what the schools or parks were before the votes for funding - people *knew* that the land needed to be secured first, THEN plans could be developed after. Seems like the citizenry sure placed the needs of the town ahead of their own interests back then! The No on V camp fell under a few categories: 1. Recent arrivals already paying through the nose on property taxes (Example: 17k a year on a 1.5 million dollar house and not wanting to pay an additional $200 a year). 2. Seniors who learned they would not get an exemption for bonds as they do receive for parcel taxes. Never mind that many (most?) long time senior's home valuations were under $500k so the addtional amount would've been less than $70 on their property worth in the seven figures. 3. Realtor / Commerce - Realtors pass up an opportunity for more commissions? Inconceivable ! Downtown businesses wanting more customers? Yes! In fact the No on V signage was being handed out at the home of a former Rotary president.
Misinformation - I'm not a City employee but I think they did a good job of presenting facts. The three interest groups cited did their best at spreading misinformation and scare tactics ("seniors, you'll be thrown out on the street!" "We don't know the plans, we don't know the plans, OMG!" ) everywhere.
Follow the money, and you'll see why the measure really failed. More money for business and realtors and higher taxes for people too frugal to put their neighbors ahead of themselves. You complain about why San Carlos is changing? It started with YOU! Who's loudly in favor of the new apartments you see coming up? Business/realtors. Who's happy about the 100 units that they're trying to approve? Business/realtors. What happened to our high school, theaters, bowling alleys? Redeveloped. Think, people! And care more about your neighbors, too. If we don't - we won't recapture the "village" feel most of us moved here for.
I'm saddened by the runaway development that's filling in every bit of open space we have, and climbing ever higher. How will all these extra residents get to and from the freeway? Where will the new kids go to school? How much revenue will we chase before we've realized we've sold out our quality of life and the very essence of this City of Good Living? No, I haven't been in the planning meetings and City Council meetings, so that's on me. It's time to change that. Someone is getting rich on all of this development, but the City and its residents will be paying for this for a long time. There's your "blank check."
A question for the SM Daily Journal: why is it that every time there is an article about San Carlos, the Journal decides to limit its replies to Mark Olbert? He has a very limited and skewed view of the world.
His "concerns" about traffic are beyond laughable. This coming from the same City Council that approved the huge apartment complexes along El Camino and the Wheeler Plaza development? He has zero credibility.
Completely agree
This is not acceptable.
"The final cost to purchase and improve the land would have been $86 million and cost the average homeowner $118 in annual property taxes. Measure V ultimately failed, garnering less than 40 percent of the vote when it needed two-thirds majority to pass."
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.